Is this right or wrong

[hey_moe]

Grandfather Gets Arrested for Holding Burglar at Gunpoint While Waiting for Police to Arrive A New Hampshire grandfather has been arrested and is facing a possible prison sentence for firing a shot into the ground and holding a burglar at gunpoint until the cops could arrive. Dennis Fleming, 61, came home on Saturday night to discover that his home had been robbed. He saw the burglar, Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of his neighbor’s window. Mr. Fleming yelled, “Freeze!” and fired a shot into the ground before holding the crook at gunpoint. When the police arrived, they arrested Hebert, but instead of a big old “thank you” and a slap on the back for Fleming, he got arrested too, on a charge of reckless conduct.
To see the original article click here.

[aeromed202]

Though I foresee this thread being closed, I'll offer my two cents quick. First, there may be more on the shooter than reported so far. Next, every state has it's own laws for this scenario. Once in a class discussing a case like this, our police instructors told us that they would have said thanks for holding the guy but we have to arrest you too. This is the legal responsibility that seems always brushed under the carpet when gun advocates get excited. Why does anyone think police officers that discharge their firearms on duty get pulled from the street? Their actions get reviewed to see if the use was justified. A citizen using a gun like this has to be familiar with the gun laws and accept them and that's that. My understanding of my own states laws is a big reason why I choose not to have one. If I did what this guy did, or worse killed someone, I would have to be ready to defend my actions in court. My law enforcement training gave me enough insight to help me decide it's just not a position I want to put myself in, at least for now. Unless I make it my profession, with all the duty, dedication and discipline to service required, I just don't need a gun for where I'm at right now. Now if I lived in the boonies, that would be another consideration, so I see it as need based. So I would say not right or wrong, but necessary. This guy showed some brains so I think it likely he will make out OK. Disagree with me if you want, but please allow me my opinions and respond thoughtfully.

[rayrey10]

I would hope that the cops arrested that gentleman because they "had to" and not because of a lack of common sense.

[Barvan40]

I would hope that the cops arrested that gentleman because they "had to" and not because of a lack of common sense.

Most likely that is the case. Many states do not allow you to fire a warning shot for any reason. When confronting a suspected criminal the only time you can shoot is to defend yourself or another from lethal force - states also have their own definition what constitutes lethal force.

[Wittpilot]

Though I foresee this thread being closed, I'll offer my two cents quick. First, there may be more on the shooter than reported so far. Next, every state has it's own laws for this scenario. Once in a class discussing a case like this, our police instructors told us that they would have said thanks for holding the guy but we have to arrest you too. This is the legal responsibility that seems always brushed under the carpet when gun advocates get excited. Why does anyone think police officers that discharge their firearms on duty get pulled from the street? Their actions get reviewed to see if the use was justified. A citizen using a gun like this has to be familiar with the gun laws and accept them and that's that. My understanding of my own states laws is a big reason why I choose not to have one. If I did what this guy did, or worse killed someone, I would have to be ready to defend my actions in court. My law enforcement training gave me enough insight to help me decide it's just not a position I want to put myself in, at least for now. Unless I make it my profession, with all the duty, dedication and discipline to service required, I just don't need a gun for where I'm at right now. Now if I lived in the boonies, that would be another consideration, so I see it as need based. So I would say not right or wrong, but necessary. This guy showed some brains so I think it likely he will make out OK. Disagree with me if you want, but please allow me my opinions and respond thoughtfully.

I think that is some reall good insight on the story from another viewpoint. Where I grew up, the ideals are a little different. As a rule of thumb, if you plan on stealing, you'd better make sure it was worth dying for. I think if you come into my home to steal or hurt me or the family, you must check your rights at the door...

[norab]

I think that is some reall good insight on the story from another viewpoint. Where I grew up, the ideals are a little different. As a rule of thumb, if you plan on stealing, you'd better make sure it was worth dying for. I think if you come into my home to steal or hurt me or the family, you must check your rights at the door...

There is the rub, while what he did was commendable in my mind, you don't have any legal right to defend someone else's home & property with lethal force. That falls outside of the "defending one's castle" exclusions in the law

[stansdds]

Firing a warning shot is a very dangerous thing. This isn't tv or movies, these are real firearms firing real ammunition. That bullet is going somewhere and firing into the ground can result in a ricochet and the bullets goes who knows where and strikes who knows what. Firing into the air is also dangerous, the bullet does not go into orbit, comes back to earth and still has the potential to inflict wounds. If you have to use a firearm you do not fire warning shots. A couple of years ago there was an incident in Richmond, VA, where a couple of retired law enforcement officers fired shots into the ground to distract a dog that was attempting to attack some children. I think they succeeded, then shot the dog. They also landed themselves in a heap of trouble, mostly for the warning shots.

Some states have castle doctrines or "hold your ground" laws that allow a citizen to defend themselves and their property. Some states do not and the victim's duty is to flee. The burglar was exiting his neighbor's house, so this guy may not have been in danger at all, it's not his property so any castle doctrine would not have been applicable. He's already on shaky ground and firing a warning shot was probably the final straw and tied the hands of the police officers. At a minimum this guy is probably going to be tried for something like brandishing a firearm, public endangerment, and unlawful discharge of a firearm. In Virginia these are misdemeanors, but they are class I misdemeanors and can land you in jail for up to 12 months.

I understand the concepts and motivations behind self defense and defending others, but for a private citizen to engage in the defense of others can be tricky. I'm glad the burglar was caught, but the warning shot was not justified.

[av8erjm]

This is messed up and why the the criminals are so blatant, here in Moscow on the Willamette, IE: Portland Or we have a nice open area called Pioneer Square where the druggies and what have congregate. Anyway I've often said we should erect a guillitine or gallows and have a few public executions. That would be a win win deal. One you'd send a message to the wanna be's, 2 you'd be reducing the criminal element. Now I'll sit back and let the PC crowd give me hell

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

In my opinion it comes down to while the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says you have a right to keep and bear arms it does not say you have a right to fire them. That act is under the jurisdiction of law not the Constitution per se. Better know the law inside and out.

-Ed-

[joe bob]

This is messed up and why the the criminals are so blatant, here in Moscow on the Willamette, IE: Portland Or we have a nice open area called Pioneer Square where the druggies and what have congregate. Anyway I've often said we should erect a guillitine or gallows and have a few public executions. That would be a win win deal. One you'd send a message to the wanna be's, 2 you'd be reducing the criminal element. Now I'll sit back and let the PC crowd give me hell

We have fought a coupla three wars to end regimes with those bright ideas.

[aeronca1]

In my opinion, we are at a very big decision point. Who has the legal rights? Law abiding citizens or the criminal scum? Namby pamby laws need to change. As I see it, you make a choice to become a criminal and one of the consequences of that choice should be a recognition that certain rights are lost as a result. Come into my house, and you leave missing parts....

[SSI01]

Aeromed and others with similar viewpoints are IMHO on pretty good ground. Speaking as a retired LEO, and at the Federal level:

-In our agency we were absolutely forbidden to fire any kind of warning shot, as previously stated the bullet has to land somewhere and can still be lethal descending as such. Dad was a carpenter for a long time around metro Detroit, where EVERYBODY pulls out a gun and fires it at the stroke of midnight on New Years eve - on the job he used to routinely find bullet holes in roofs that were causing leaks in homes. The bullets had enough force to penetrate roofing plywood after falling back to earth - yes, they are absolutely lethal to a human being after falling. Firing into the ground carries with it the obvious potential of striking your own appendage (foot), or possibly a previously-unnoticed rock just under the surface that can cause a ricochet - maybe into a very embarassing and extremely painful part of the body when injured. When shooting, shoot only to protect your life or that of someone you can clearly see is in imminent danger. You must fire to render the offender incapable of any further threatening action. You must be able to articulate in court, under great pressure and minute examination, even from your own people, why you discharged your weapon.

-This incident involved a citizen witnessing a criminal commit a criminal act on another person's property. His best course of action should have been to arm himself but remain indoors, notify police via telephone re: a criminal act in progress, note and record everything possible about the criminal, and keep him under observation until he departs the area or the police arrive. You can get a good make/model on the vehicle involved and provide that to the PD, they can catch him on the road.

-No one's life was being overtly threatened by our perp, hence the court will probably say the witness's actions were a form of "overkill" given the offense committed. I know the thief could be armed, however, there was, again, no overt evidence of that, therefore using a weapon (first) and discharging it (second) would not have been warranted in these circumstances. An officer would have taken as much cover as he could, covered his weapon, and called out the offender if seeing the act during commission.

-Bottom line appears to be there was no imminent danger to the witness, nor did the crime occur on his property. The PD almost had to do what they did. That being said, if our witness has no previous problems with the law or other firearms-related offenses, chances are he'll forfeit the weapon and get off with charges dismissed or at the worst a suspended misdemeanor violation.

[aeromed202]

I'm impressed by the responses. I thought for sure this would devolve into Locked-Thread-Ville. Nice job everyone. I just thought this event should make people think about the awesome responsibility incumbent on someone who wields a firearm. Know your target, know your background, and never point a loaded gun at anything you don't want to destroy. Oh. and know the law too.

[Crusader]

Hey All,

In my opinion it comes down to while the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says you have a right to keep and bear arms it does not say you have a right to fire them. That act is under the jurisdiction of law not the Constitution per se. Better know the law inside and out.

-Ed-

I agree with you Ed as far as the "Letter Of The Law" in the Constitution but when Ohio adopted their Concealed Weapons Law and have since amended it I believe last October , It states basically in one of the sections that If a person enters your home illegally or confronts you out in the street and threatens to do serious bodily harm to you(Or your family) , or kill you , you have a right to fire your weapons and defend yourself . This probably may not even be related to the subject in this tread and I would guess that even here in Ohio this person would probably be subject to at least a fine or something for discharging his weapon . I doubt if he would serve any time . I think I would probably have at least tried to detain him somehow and not use a weapon until he threatened to injure me seriously or kill me . You certainly give good advice " to know the law inside and out" and unfortunately most of us are not lawyers . In my area in the past 2 to 3 weeks we have had several B and E's where several people were at home . One particular older gentleman was beaten severely and lifeflighted to Columbus in serious condition . This was unheard of in just a few years past in this small town and rural community .

Rich

[hey_moe]

Da boys in here better behave themselves or I gonna send each one of them to there room and NO din din.

I'm impressed by the responses. I thought for sure this would devolve into Locked-Thread-Ville. Nice job everyone. I just thought this event should make people think about the awesome responsibility incumbent on someone who wields a firearm. Know your target, know your background, and never point a loaded gun at anything you don't want to destroy. Oh. and know the law too.